NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Notebook Forums › Dell Notebook Benchmarks › E1705/M1710/M1730 FRAPS Benchmarks Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

E1705/M1710/M1730 FRAPS Benchmarks Thread - Page 9  

post #161 of 494
11/20/07 at 9:50pm
yep but he's probably like me and too cheap to buy the actual program, lol

Ive got a 1440x900 screen and it pops up at 1280x854. I only use it to test my own machine against different clocks, and backtest against my dell 9300 which did 4000

hope he does some benchmarks for the thread
post #162 of 494
11/21/07 at 1:51am
So with my E1705 I got about 33 FPS with Crysis Medium settings 1024 x 768

BF2142 was 85-90 FPS
post #163 of 494
11/21/07 at 1:51am
I will post the acutal numbers tommorrow night, Have to re-install Excel on the laptop
post #164 of 494
11/21/07 at 3:09am
Hey,

Wanted to avert the crisis away from crysis (pun intended).

I looked out the window this weekend and it was raining/snowing and there was a dog barking in the distance and it reminided me of STALKER. So i popped it in and installed the latest patch and went to have some scary fun The Xray engine that hte game uses is actually kinda hard to run. And its weird cuz they only recc a 6800 and 1Gb RAM which from my sig u can see I surpass. Even with driver experimenting I didnt really see a FPS boost. What are your thoughts on STALKER engine and such?
post #165 of 494
11/21/07 at 4:55am
Thread Starter 
You're brave to run STALKER at 19x12 with 256 MB of VRAM. I have had NO driver that improved performance enough to brag about, and I've tried two dozen, no bullshit. STALKER has an awesome engine, but the game didn't have what it took to keep my attention. Solid as heck, but too realistic, I guess. Might I suggest you get a 7950GTX or a 3500M? You won't regret it.
post #166 of 494
11/21/07 at 4:56am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave-p View Post
I will post the acutal numbers tommorrow night, Have to re-install Excel on the laptop
You don't need Excel. FRAPS shoots the info to a .txt file too. Everything I've posted is from that file.
post #167 of 494
11/21/07 at 5:56am
2007-11-21 08:48:15 - iw3sp
Frames: 919 - Time: 42018ms - Avg: 21.872 - Min: 15 - Max: 26 druing fighting action scenes. everything maxed as far as I can go

2007-11-21 08:52:21 - TestDriveUnlimited
Frames: 357 - Time: 24793ms - Avg: 14.399 - Min: 10 - Max: 18 ditto

2007-11-21 08:54:17 - sof3
Frames: 1461 - Time: 48211ms - Avg: 30.304 - Min: 24 - Max: 36

1900x1200 maxed and relaxed. in every single way
post #168 of 494
11/21/07 at 10:34am
post #169 of 494
11/21/07 at 12:46pm
Hey TurbodTalon, I would appreciate if you could post a few comparative benchmarks with your 7950 running at more conventional speeds, say 600/800.
I wonder how much of an impact your very high o/c has on acutal FPS.
post #170 of 494
11/21/07 at 12:55pm
oc makes a huge difference.

they are conventional speeds.

its oc'ing my temps are just fine. AS5 bud

hey Turbo bud.

tell this guy that your OC is resonable.

even when mine is @ 650/730/50 it runs @ 47 deg's Cetegrade. when IDLE.

andmax is like 83 deg's cent.
post #171 of 494
11/21/07 at 7:20pm
savat that would b awesome if you could post some talker pics. And TT, im no that brave enough to run stalker at 19x12 lol. Even though it plays at like 15FPS at that resolution, its not that bad but still choppy. I hope they re optimize the xray engine for the next release Clear Sky
post #172 of 494
11/22/07 at 10:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghazgull013 View Post
savat that would b awesome if you could post some talker pics. And TT, im no that brave enough to run stalker at 19x12 lol. Even though it plays at like 15FPS at that resolution, its not that bad but still choppy. I hope they re optimize the xray engine for the next release Clear Sky
Ok, I'll post them soon. P.S. With my utra-high settings and specific 1.6 version of the Float32 mod, Stalker runs low 21 high 45 fps for me in 1440x900, this with patch 1.0003 which is not optimized for dual-core processors like 1.0004, but at least enables Grass Shadows, a visual setting I like. About the XRay Engine 1.5, we expect it to bring our systems even more to their knees. While it will be more optimized than v1.0, there will be more enhanced graphic featrures, plus a more sophisticated AI. I don't expect Clear Sky to run any smoother than SHOC. My upgrade to a 7950 is partly because of this upcoming game. Did you see the latest developper diary where they explain their new AI feature, called Smart Object (plus a few screenshots) ? The way the AI will interect with its environment for taking cover will be awesome. While many despised it, I really liked SHOC AI and found the enemy to be a real challenge sometimes.
post #173 of 494
11/22/07 at 12:47pm
missed stalker, looking to pick that up and COD4, gears of war when finish bioshock

I am a SLOW gamer, don't get enough time

the 7950/fx3500 overclocked runs bioshock like butter on 1440x900 all max
post #174 of 494
11/22/07 at 2:39pm
I am getting 30fps +++ on 1680x1000 everything absolutely maxed on bio on my 7900gtx
post #175 of 494
11/22/07 at 3:45pm
Bioshock has been sitting on my desk unplayed for two months now because I knew my 7900GS couldn't garantee an average 30 at mx.
post #176 of 494
11/22/07 at 5:53pm
heya turbo, I noticed that my card is artifacting lots especiallly on crysis.

I have to clock her down to like 620 or lower core and 730 mem so she doesn't art.

mind you this only happens when I am over 1600x xxxx res.


you never experienced it huh?

I guess it makes things easier having only wxga screen.

I have contemplated such myself but could never bring myself to Lose the option of going higher.


I could however settle with WSXGA+ 1680x1050.

that could be a happy medium.


seriously tho.. Crysis @ 1600x1000 is very very playable I push over 30fps and dip some but it is smooth and nice. no freezing or slowdowns.

the artifacting sux tho when you OC ALOT.

some games like obliv I can do 650/750, and same with BIO.

but then again crysis, call of jaurez. can't cut it.

i think they might just be horribly optomized?

whatcha think.
post #177 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:01pm
Thread Starter 
Yeah, I definitely artifacted in Crysis with my clocks too high. I don't like going below native res, not even a little. I'll wait to play Crysis when I can run it decently. I never played Oblivion until it was out for nearly two years, so I'll be fine. There are plenty of other really great games to play. You are brave to try games like that at 19x12.
post #178 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurbodTalon View Post
Yeah, I definitely artifacted in Crysis with my clocks too high. I don't like going below native res, not even a little. I'll wait to play Crysis when I can run it decently. I never played Oblivion until it was out for nearly two years, so I'll be fine. There are plenty of other really great games to play. You are brave to try games like that at 19x12.
You're really passing on Crysis ? From your benchmarks it seemed to run quite good all at high, so I assumed that a mix of medium and high would be just fine. Of course it is not as beautiful as it is intented to be, but I like to replay my favorite games, so I'll just go through it again in a few years. They might as well unlock new graphical features since then, like they did for FarCry.
post #179 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:17pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by savat View Post
You're really passing on Crysis ? From your benchmarks it seemed to run quite good all at high, so I assumed that a mix of medium and high would be just fine. Of course it is not as beautiful as it is intented to be, but I like to replay my favorite games, so I'll just go through it again in a few years. They might as well unlock new graphical features since then, like they did for FarCry.
Yeah, man, I'm picky about not lowering my native res. That's what I'd have to do to run Crysis at a decent frame rate. Not passing on it completely, just for now.
post #180 of 494
11/22/07 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by diefool View Post
but then again crysis, call of jaurez. can't cut it. i think they might just be horribly optomized? whatcha think.
For a reason I ignore, Call of Juarez runs very smoothly for me, all at max, 1440x900, except shadows at medium. I can't cut it though at 1680x1050 for my external LCD native resolution, but the difference in quality between both resolutions is very minor. IMHO, this game sometimes has very beautiful graphics, and sometimes really poor (like the very high cliff and water which look very dated). Nice use of lighting and particles effects though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dell Notebook Benchmarks
This thread is locked  
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Notebook Forums › Dell Notebook Benchmarks › E1705/M1710/M1730 FRAPS Benchmarks Thread